2D vs. 3D: Texture/World Detail

Discussion in 'Fallout 3 Discussion' started by phide, Feb 7, 2000.

  1. phide

    phide Guest

    One thing many of you praising these 3D engines are forgetting: detail.

    In Fallout and Fallout 2, you can have an immense amount of detail. 10 or 15 cars lined up on the side of a wall, a nuclear bomb with photo-realistic detail, to name a couple.

    But what about a 3D engine? The 3D engine may be nice because you can see weapons and have a virtually unlimited number of animations, bu when it comes to shear graphical spendlor, 2D engines can achieve much more.

    Take a car for example, in Shogo (using LithTech as an example) you can make that car with 500-600 faces. What results is a blocky looking relic, with no such detail as steering wheels, seats, etc. In a 2D engine like Fallout, that car can have an unlimited amount of polygons. It just depends on how much time you invest in it. Plus, you get the advantage of un-antialiased texture maps, which takes a bitch of a lot of blur of the model.

    And some people are getting confused about animating and modelling between 3D engines and 2D engines. They are the exact same thing.

    To do animations in LithTech, you perform animations in 3D Studio Max, then export to .abc (LithTech's model format). It comes in the format, animations and all, then you just stick it all into the code.

    With Fallout, you do the exact same thing. You model and animate the object in 3D Studio Max, then the modeller stuck the information into a simple program, that program breaks the animations up into frames, then arranges those frames. When you shoot your pistol, the code simply triggers a set of animations that run once, then stop back again at the regular model position. They don't draw these things out by hand in any way, it's the same concept, only in 2D engines the animations take up more hard drive real estate.

    One other detail is that you need a bitch of a machine to run modern engines such as Unreal. A 350 MHz Pentium 2 with a Voodoo2 or TNT/TNT2 card is passable, but games nowadays are needing 128 MB of RAM (Q3 needs 64, but it only runs well with 92 or 128) and 500 MHz processors. Fallout kicks ass on a P200, and even on my old P100, it shines. On my 475 MHz machine, the difference is negligible (in fact, things STILL drop down to a snail's pace at the Gun Runner's).

    Simply improving the Fallout engine is what I believe Black Isle should do. But, prove me wrong guys.
  2. APTYP

    APTYP Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Apr 2, 2003
    3D is in favor these days. My friend called Fallout 'crap' because 'graphics sucked'. Let's face it, first-time PC gamers buy computer following salesperson's 'advices'. They get biggest baddest super-duper-3D accellerator and want to see their money work. Thats why companies relied so much on visual effects when 3DFX 'rocked our world'. Interplay/Blackisle want as much money for their games as it could get. So they will try to aim their next Fallout at bigger audience without trying to lose the old fans. I think Fallout 3 will be 3D - unless Blackisle will pull out some trick like saying that 3D accelerator will be used for the creation of some visual effects etc.

    Homepage http://members.xoom/russiandude/APTYP.html
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Okay, here's some facts.

    >One thing many of you praising
    >these 3D engines are forgetting:
    >In Fallout and Fallout 2, you
    >can have an immense amount
    >of detail. 10 or 15
    >cars lined up on the
    >side of a wall, a
    >nuclear bomb with photo-realistic detail,
    >to name a couple.

    You forget however that you are only viewing the cars, etc. from one angle, the front. As for the nuke, that was a movie, and the movie was created in a 3D rendering program.

    >But what about a 3D engine?
    >The 3D engine may be
    >nice because you can see
    >weapons and have a virtually
    >unlimited number of animations, bu
    >when it comes to shear
    >graphical spendlor, 2D engines can
    >achieve much more.

    I wouldn't go that far. 2D engines only achieve good quality graphics because they are not zoomed in upon. Zoom in and you'll see that the graphics are blocky and grotesque.

    Take DOOM vs Quake II. DOOM used a sprite/3D engine. The sprites looked just fine from far away, but close up they simply look bad.

    Fallout 1/2 ran in 640x480x256 mode, and nothing was ever zoomed in. Sure the graphics look great when you're staring at a 1-inch human from far away on a somewhat blury monitor. Of course it will look better than if he was a zoomed in.

    Tell me this however, if that model was made in a 3D program and the entire scene was 3D, would you be able to tell from that far away if the sprite character looked better than the 3D model? You'd probably claim the 3D model looked better, because of its smooth natural movement.

    >Take a car for example, in
    >Shogo (using LithTech as an
    >example) you can make that
    >car with 500-600 faces. What
    >results is a blocky looking
    >relic, with no such detail
    >as steering wheels, seats, etc.
    >In a 2D engine like
    >Fallout, that car can have
    >an unlimited amount of polygons.
    >It just depends on how
    >much time you invest in
    >it. Plus, you get the
    >advantage of un-antialiased texture maps,
    >which takes a bitch of
    >a lot of blur of
    >the model.

    All sprite games, with the exception of the first CGA games, used anti-aliasing. That's why the characters in Fallout look nice and rounded and the scenes blend so well. What you're complaining of is when you zoom in so close to the texture that you can see the pixels. The reason it is anti-aliased is because without it, the picture looks pixelated instead of just textured.

    The level of detain in a 3D object is determined by the designer. Fallout is a single player game and thus does not need to worry about keeping polygon count low due to multiplay. The level of detail can be high with Fallout 3.

    >And some people are getting confused
    >about animating and modelling between
    >3D engines and 2D engines.
    >They are the exact same
    >To do animations in LithTech, you
    >perform animations in 3D Studio
    >Max, then export to .abc
    >(LithTech's model format). It comes
    >in the format, animations and
    >all, then you just stick
    >it all into the code.
    >With Fallout, you do the exact
    >same thing. You model and
    >animate the object in 3D
    >Studio Max, then the modeller
    >stuck the information into a
    >simple program, that program breaks
    >the animations up into frames,
    >then arranges those frames. When
    >you shoot your pistol, the
    >code simply triggers a set
    >of animations that run once,
    >then stop back again at
    >the regular model position. They
    >don't draw these things out
    >by hand in any way,
    >it's the same concept, only
    >in 2D engines the animations
    >take up more hard drive
    >real estate.

    Incorrect. While the same process may be used to create the look of the character, polygons have many merits above sprite images.

    #1) Polygons take up less memory, after all they are simply points and the video card can do the computations on them.

    #2) Polygons are faster loading. Fallout 2 takes forever to load maps even on today's fastest computers. Polygons can be loaded up incredibly quick since the lighting and polygon data is computed beforehand and saved as mathmatical functions.

    #3) Polygon modeling takes less work than sprites. With the sprites in Fallout each frame had to be modified to hold a different weapon, hold the weapon during walking and running, firing the weapon, and the animations while standing still. About 50 frames per gun types x armors x genders. Aside from space, each frame had to look consistent, drawn by an artist (the basic model may be rendered on a computer but it is still drawn), and done for a variety of NPCs too.

    >One other detail is that you
    >need a bitch of a
    >machine to run modern engines
    >such as Unreal. A 350
    >MHz Pentium 2 with a
    >Voodoo2 or TNT/TNT2 card is
    >passable, but games nowadays are
    >needing 128 MB of RAM
    >(Q3 needs 64, but it
    >only runs well with 92
    >or 128) and 500 MHz
    >processors. Fallout kicks ass on
    >a P200, and even on
    >my old P100, it shines.
    >On my 475 MHz machine,
    >the difference is negligible (in
    >fact, things STILL drop down
    >to a snail's pace at
    >the Gun Runner's).

    Those games are multiplayer and need a fast card so you don't lag the connection. That is the real reason you want those kind of cards.

    By the time Fallout 3 comes out you can expect that most everyone will have a decent computer and video card.

    Even Fallout 2 is horribly slow (load time) even on my AMD K6-II 450mhz with 128 megs PC100 RAM. However complex levels in games like Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear run just fine. Yeah, it's the video card, but nowadays everyone has a decent video card.

    >Simply improving the Fallout engine is
    >what I believe Black Isle
    >should do. But, prove me
    >wrong guys.

    The Fallout engine is old and inferior. Yeah, it was pretty cool when it debuted and even a year ago when Fallout 2 came out, but it just can't compare now.

    I love tile-based RPGs, but I see the need for Fallout 3 to be 3D. Tile-based RPGs were good back in the days before good 3D accelerators.


    [div align=center][hr]
    Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy and paste me into your signature box to help me spread![/div]